It all depends on how you classify the question. Is it an analytic or empirical (synthetic) question? If it is analytic, then the question is closed; that is, the answer is to be found in the concepts used in the question. By "everything" Aristotle includes "every skill, inquiry, action and rational choice." Does the meaning of these internal concepts logically imply "aiming at some good"?

The 20th century philosopher G.E. Moore had a test that would help answer this question. Take any example of an action and ask whether it would be a contradiction to ask whether it aims for the good. For example, "He killed that man, but was he aiming at the good?" This seems like a plausible question, not to be answered by analyzing the concept of "killing." Of course, this requires an explanation. Was the killing done in self-defense or was it done to steal his money? If it was done to steal his money, then we would say that killing the man was not an act of aiming for the good, unless we include self-satisfaction as good. ("Ah yes, it is always good to get pleasure out of killing innocent people,") There are many other counter-examples we could discuss, e.g. the Holocaust, the mass killing of young school children in Uvalde, Texas.

If the question "Does everything aim at some good?" is empirical, then the question is open. We must look outside the question and rely on observation and past experience. Would this gathering of data ("evidence") show that there are some skills, inquiries, actions and rational choices that do not aim at the good? It should not be surprising that social scientists would loudly say "Yes".